Is this a result of Belgium's use of PR (open list system)? Well, this is unusually long period for talks - a world record and Belgium is historically much quicker at forming coalitions. Furthermore, it should be said that other countries like Germany (which uses the hybrid FPTP/PR system, AMS) usually form their coalitions much quicker. Ultimately the sticking points in the coalition talks were over the use of language in Belgium (Flemish/Dutch vs. French Walloon). So, it's unfair to say it's all the fault of PR. Nevertheless, the formation of coalitions can be lengthy and destabilising.
Would FPTP have helped? Would it have given a winner's bonus to the biggest single party? The answer is probably not by enough to avoid the need for a coalition. Remember FPTP only tends to do that when there are two clearly dominant parties. The vote for parties in Belgium in 2010 was along the lines of 17%, 14%, 11%, 9%, 9%, 9%, 7%, 5%, 5%, 5%, with a few smaller parties added in. So for the leading party to have won under FPTP in Belgium in 2010, it would have to enjoy a particularly favourable constituency system to have avoided the need for a coalition. Even if the leading party had somehow managed to form a single party governement, would that have been fair? Might the presence of a single party government for which less than one in five people voted, have been even more destabilising than a 6 party coalition?
In light of this, it could be argued that FPTP works best in countries where 2 parties clearly dominate . The question is, does the UK fit that description for the last few elections? Might it go back to a 2 party system at the next election? Might my scheme of work for next year have to be completely altered because of Nick Clegg!!!??? I didn't think this post on Belgian politics would be this long when I started it. If you're still reading, here's a tip: Rhetorical questions - fair game for bloggers/teachers, no good for essays.
